This searchable database contains bibliographic information for literature (research-based and policy/practice) relating to dispute resolution in special education.
CADRE is interested in identifying additional articles and publications to include in this database. If you are aware of other such resources, please send an email to cadre@directionservice.org with as much information as possible about the resource (e.g., title, author, source, date), and include a copy of the publication or a URL link, if available. Interested in emerging research and knowledge gaps in IDEA dispute resolution?
COVID-19 Considerations for State Educations Agencies and IDEA Due Process Hearing Officers
This outline identifies some of the common issues that have come up during the COVID-19 outbreak and offers, where apropriate, some hearing process considerations for state educational agencies (SEA) and hearing officers.Learn more
Due Process Hearing and Written State Complaint Activity for COVID-19 Issues: A Six-Month Snapshot
In addition to the alternative forms of dispute resolution under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the two decisional avenues are adjudicative and investigative. The adjudicative avenue starts with a due process hearing (DPH) and culminates in court proceedings. The...Learn more
Expert Recommendations for the Future of Due Process in Special Education: A Delphi Study
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to identify recommendations that a Delphi panel of experts judged to be the most important for the future of due process in special education for avoiding due process hearings. The study also sought to determine and describe the degree of importance and...Learn more
Impartial Hearings under the IDEA: Legal Issues and Answers
[introduction] This Question and Answer document is specific to impartial hearing officers (IHOs) and the impartial hearings that they conduct under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It does not cover the IHO’s remedial authority, which is the subject of separate comprehensive...Learn more
Impartial Hearings Under the IDEA: Updated Legal Issues and Answers
This updated question-and-answer document is specific to impartial hearing officers (IHOs) and the hearings that they conduct under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The coverage does not extend to the alternate third-party dispute decisional mechanism under the IDEA, the...Learn more
OSEP Policy Guidance for IDEA Impartial Hearing Officers
This annotated overview of the policy letters of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) available on their website covers the period 2001 to the present. Among these IDEA policy interpretations, the selection is largely limited to those within the basic building blocks of the IDEA, free...Learn more
Safeguarding procedures under the IDEA: Restoring the balance in the adjudication of FAPE
In the landmark case Board of Education v. Rowley in 1982, the Supreme Court concluded that FAPE has two prongs—procedural compliance and a less specific substantive standard. In the succeeding decades, the courts have gradually eroded the procedural dimension to the point of near distinction by...Learn more
Schaffer v. Weast’s Effects on California Special Education Hearing Decisions
This research examined the associations between Schaffer v. Weast (2005) and special education due process hearing decisions in California. Using a database we coded from the state’s due process hearings for cases that reached a decision (years 1995–2019), this study analyzed (1) how legal...Learn more
State Due Process Hearing Systems Under the IDEA: An Update
Abstract As part of its structure of cooperative federalism, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act delegates to the states implementation, within broad specifications, of administrative adjudication systems. In light of the centrality of these systems of dispute resolution and the limited...Learn more
State Laws for Due Process Hearings Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The IDEA provides the fundamental framework for state-level resolution of special education disputes, while also allowing states to add to (but not subtract from) the regulations for state and local education agencies. In this article Zirkel presents how each state has supplemented the federal...Learn more